Of these 40,000 ICU patients, they excluded anyone who received RBCs within 24 hours prior to the PLT count that triggered transfusion “to minimize the risk of including those with active bleeding” … The primary outcome was essentially to determine if transfusing platelets led to more RBC transfusions, and, secondarily, all-cause mortality, ICU and hospital free days (among others). Seems backwards, but whatever.

So what falls out of this data?

For all comers, in a propensity matched cohort, one transfusion begets another – (46.3 % of those with platelet transfusions also had an RBC transfusion vs 10.4% of those without platelet transfusions who had an RBC transfusion). Interestingly, those transfused platelets had less ICU free days (22.7 vs 20.8), more hospital free days (15.8 vs 13). When you look specifically at the ~5000 patients with <50k platelet counts and compare those who were/were not transfused platelets, there was no change in ICU mortality, 30 day mortality, ICU-free days, or hospital free days. While this was underpowered to determine statistical significance for those with platelet counts <50k, it is not hard to imagine a larger study to suggest similar benefits of not transfusing these patients- particularly since this study saw fewer hospital free days and fewer ICU free stays (10.2 vs 7.8 days and 19.9 vs 18.3 days respectively) – favoring a more restrictive transfusion strategy (but again, not meeting statistical significance, perhaps due to so few patients with <50k PLT).

ThisisnotthefirststudyI have seen suggesting empiric transfusion or outright canceling of procedures based on platelet counts between 50k and 150k is essentially bunk, and that prophylactic platelet therapy is of little benefit, if not outright harmful. There is even a flicker of a signal that prophylactic platelet transfusions >20k may not be beneficial – but this has yet to be definitively shown true -yet.

I can not agree more with the last words to the authors, “Finally, it must be acknowledged that while clinical trajectories did not improve for the cohort as a whole after platelet transfusion, it is possible that certain subpopulations may indeed benefit from the intervention, though these subgroups have yet to be identified.”

This is exploratory look at patients diagnosed with endocarditis at admission versus those with a delayed diagnosis. Granted, this is not a US study, and over a 9 year period at a single center, but does provide an interesting look at how we manage these patients….

They looked at those with an admitting diagnosis of endocarditis that eventually went on to have this as a final diagnosis as well (54 patients), and compared them to patients with a non-endocarditis initial diagnosis to those who eventually had a final diagnosis of endocarditis (64 patients).

Even in the two slam-dunk groups- the IVDA & those with valve replacements, the diagnosis was delayed in the 38% of the time for those with a history of IVDA. For those with a valve replacement there were also significant delays with native valves delayed 63% of time, vs prosthetics delayed 24% of time…. Are we really bad at diagnosing this? Let’s peel back this onion.

Of those in the “complications” category, only 10% were unlikely to be dosed with antibiotics – they were admitted for “stroke” or CHF/ pulmonary edema. This is clearly understandable. Do we need STAT echos for the pulmonary edema patient? Or for the stroke? STAT echo’s right away for all of these patients – or perhaps routinely ordering them on all CHF / stroke patients may prove more costly and harmful than its worth.

The author’s make the argument that there is significant mortality involved with an initial missed diagnosis in their cohort- 75% vs 25% (!!!). I’m not certain these represent a complete whiff on the part of the treating clinicians. Rather, I would argue that these patients had their complications recognized and treated appropriately (ie, the pneumonia and UTI’s got antibiotics initially), and that these patients were likely sicker to begin with and that is why they had all the additional complications and higher mortality.

While perhaps a heightened awareness of valve replacement patients, and/or awareness of the disease process may help, but sadly, when you are looking for a needle in the haystack, having a 100% sensitive and specific diagnostic algorithm is unreasonable. When can certainly do better, but how much better without causing harms to the rest of the department remains debatable.

It’s a common statement after applying the probe to a patient, and wouldn’t you love to know the answer to the age old question, “Does gel temperature matter for patient satisfaction?”… While we have some data suggesting improved patient satisfaction scores with POCUS, but could those scores be better if the gel was warmed? Or perhaps would all the improvement in satisfaction scores be lost with cool gel?

This group performed bedside ultrasound using heated gel (102F) or room-temperature gel (82.3F – quite the warm department!). The investigators even went so far as to trying to blind those performing the study with a heat-resistant glove (!) – and even validated gel temperature through weekly quality assurance measurements throughout the study period. The investigators informed all patients that the study entailed investigation into various measures to improve patient satisfaction with POCUS, but did not inform them of their specific focus on gel temperature. After POCUS was performed, patients completed the following survey: “How satisfied are you with the experience of having a bedside ultrasound today?” (on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for satisfaction), as well as, “Are you satisfied with the care you received today in the emergency department (yes or no), as well as “How professional was the provider who performed your bedside ultrasound?” (A Likert scale spanning 1-5)

All in all, 59 patients underwent randomization to POCUS with room-temperature gel and 61 underwent randomization to heated gel.

In the end, heated gel made no difference for any of the three questions posed to patients. While I think those of us utilizing warm gel were probably making space in the blanket warmer, it’s nice to know that this intervention, while nice, does not make much of a difference, and a “special” warmer specific for gel in your department is probably unnecessary.

This randomised controlled open-label trial looked at giving 2 grams of IV ceftriaxone to patients that met SIRS criteria (save for WBC- testing unavailable to EMS) with suspected infectious illness. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention group or usual care group using block-randomisation with blocks of 4. This study took place across ten large regional ambulance services serving 34 secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Netherlands over a 2 year period. They screened 3228 patients of which 2698 were eligible (pregnancy, beta-lactam or ceftriaxone allergy, suspected prosthetic joint infection, among others); 1150 in the usual care arm (IV fluids, supplemental oxygen prn), and 1548 in the intervention group (2g ceftriaxone plus usual care). 13 patients in each arm were excluded from final analysis or excluded due to withdrawn consent or being lost to follow up. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days.

So, while they screened over 3,000 patients over 2 years (a massive undertaking!), unfortunately, only 37 (3.3%) patients in usual care and 66 (4.3%) patients in the early antibiotics group had septic shock. Perhaps you could make an argument that the intervention group was slightly sicker with 22% vs 17% having 2 or more qSOFA criteria. Despite a median time to antibiotics of 70 minutes in the ED (thus, probably close to 90+minutes faster in the intervention cohort), and with 14% having antibiotics >3hrs from presentation and 14% having none at all (suspected viral syndrome) – there was 8% mortality in both arms at 28 days and 12% at 90 days in both arms. No difference.

When you look at mortality for septic shock it was 27% (10/37) in the prehospital antibiotic cohort vs 28.8% (19/66). Again, not statistically significant. While prehospital antibiotics might make a difference in a larger cohort, its probably going to be very hard to ever do that study – this was a 2 year study looking at over 3,000 patients and they were barely able to accumulate over 100 septic shock patients.

While an American might argue “they only gave ceftriaxone, you need a real drug like Pip-tazo and vancomycin!” – slow down. The authors acknowledge that ceftriaxone may not have been appropriate because it was “a big gun” that they could all agree on and most patients were rapidly narrowed to receive, most commonly, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid with ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone the second and third most common antibiotics given. They did not have culture reports back at time of publication, but having low mortality, and 9% of each cohort were not given antibiotics from the ED due to suspected viral illness makes me suspect that they do not have nearly the resistance problem (or concerns) that the Americans do, likely do to appropriate stewardship. Likewise, while one may be concerned about missed diagnosis due to premature closure, there was a miss rate of 1.4% in the intervention group vs 1.7% in the usual care group, also not statistically significant.

In the end, the authors provide a sensical view of the current state of prehospital antibiotics, “Studies showing that early antibiotic treatment is beneficial for reducing mortality found this positive association mainly in patients with more severe illness and a (time to antibiotic) of more than 5–6 hours… However, we currently do not advise antibiotic administration in the ambulance to patients with suspected sepsis.“

While it is certainly plausible that prehospital antibiotics may be beneficial for those with septic shock, it is a near certainty that, at least in the USA, sepsis hysteria would further ensue and the inertia of giving everyone a dose of broad spectrum antibiotics will likely occur – not to mention our continued fixation with iatrogenic salt-water drowning. The cost to the system – including other patients in the department – of responding to these prehospital alerts for those not in shock will likely be the hidden cost infrequently published or discussed by administrations.

This was an entertaining 9 page meta-analysis espousing the therapeutic harm of vancomycin and pip-tazo in the form of acute kidney injury. With a conflict of interest page that reads like a pharmaceutical mutual fund (The Medicines Company, Cubist, Pfizer, Merck, Forest/Allergan, Melinta), it’s no wonder that they infer increased mortality due to AKI, yet conveniently COMPLETELY ignore that the same papers they reference show no mortality difference – and if anything a trend towards mortality benefit for vanco-PipTazo. Likewise, with dialysis rates <2%, the induced kidney injury is less likely to cause harm than a suboptimal drug that wont kill your bug.

But in the end, since The Medicines Company and Melinta have new broad spectrum antibiotics on the market or on the way, it probably behooves them to run a slight smear campaign on current treatment regimens. Therefore, forgive me for considering the possibility that the authors intentions may not be pure.

My angst for the NGT has been explained in a previous post, and while this study adds to said angst, it sadly comes short of putting a nail in the coffin in the debate with surgical colleagues.This is a retrospective single center study which enrolled 181 ED patients with SBO from September 2013 to Sept 2015, and essentially grouped patients according to whether or not a nasogastric tube was placed (49% of patients did not receive the dreaded NGT). Looking at a multitude of factors, they attempted to tease out items associated with nasogastric tube placement, and if there were any appreciable benefits to NGT placement.

Ultimately, if you are over age 70 (37% NGT+ vs 19% NGT-), have a malignancy (30% NGT+ vs 17% NGT-), or had a prior SBO (56% NGT+ vs 32% NGT-) you’re more likely to have an NGT because, hey, one good NGT deserves another. NGT+ patients were also less likely to have “likely / early SBO” (19% NGT+ vs 40% NGT-) on CT imaging as well.

All in all, while I’d love to point at the mean length of stays (7 days for NGT+ vs 4.2 days for NGT-; median 5 days vs 3 days), and non-statistically significant resection rates of 13% vs 9% as indications that the NGT is not needed…. well, we’re not exactly comparing apples to apples. The NGT+ patients were sicker- they were older, had higher malignancy rates, had a slightly higher surgical rate, and were more likely to have “definite SBO” on CT. Sadly, this is not the paper to put the NGT argument to rest. We still need a larger study, preferably with matched controls, to fully put this dinosaur to rest.

Local cultures are interesting, and variety is the spice of life. So let’s look at the ripened Quinsy fruit, shall we?

It is entirely imaginable that local practice at one tertiary care center is to perform an ED needle aspiration under endocavitary ultrasound guidance for a peritonsillar abscess and discharge the patient, while another within 100 miles may consult ENT to perform an aspiration at bedside and admit the patient. Likewise, one community center may perform aspiration, admit the patient overnight and consult ENT in the AM, while another community ED may transfer to a nearby tertiary care center because “this patient needs ENT.”

Ultimately, none of the above is necessarily wrong, it just depends on your level of comfort; but perhaps an understanding of the patients likely disease course may change your sentiment a bit.

This is a review of data from multiple sources – the National Ambulatory Health Care Survey of Emergency Departments, the national Emergency Department Sample, and the National Inpatient Sample – to evaluation the treatment outcomes of patients with a Quinsy – also known as a peritonsillar abscess. Ultimately, they find that only 20% of patients had an incision and drainage in the ED, 73% of ED patients were discharged, (5.9% transfer, 21.6% admit) yet, only a 5% revisit rate.

Importantly, medical failure occurred only 12.4% of the time, and surgical failure (a needle aspiraton was considered a surgical intervention) occurred only 3.5% of the time. There was a 2% re-admit rate, with a <2% complication rate for both medically and surgically treated patients.

Rather than transferring patients for ENT evaluation, and providing them with quite the bill for an ambulance, its entirely reasonable to attempt ED aspiration given the low likelihood of surgical failure. Likewise, its also reasonable to have a risk benefit discussion and explain to the patient that they have about a 10-15% chance of medical failure if they elect to not undergo an invasive procedure, provided you’ve adequately explained indications for returning to the ED; 90% likelihood of success is still quite high and you dont even have to get stabbed in the throat!

In the next post, we’ll discuss ways to optimize your patient, and red flags that aught to trigger an overnight stay. But for now, you should feel comfortable either medically treating the patient or attempting aspiration before considering transfer.